1:30 I Call to Order - John Craven 5 Min.
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #74
C. Adoption of Agenda
1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.
A. Motions Approved:
1. Motion to amend Section 1 (Article III:
Membership) of the Bylaws.
2. Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V:
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws.
3. Motion to accept the peer review units.
B. Motions Pending: none
1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow 10 Min.
B. Remarks by Provost J. Keating 5 Min.
C. Research Presentation - J. Keating 30 Min.
2:25 IV Governance Reports
A. ASUAF - S. Nuss 5 Min.
B. Staff Council - P. Long 5 Min.
C. President's Report - J. Craven 5 Min.
(Attachment 75/1)
D. President-Electıs Comments - M. Schatz 5 Min.
(Attachment 75/2)
2:45 V Public Comments/Questions 5 Min.
2:50 ***BREAK*** 15 Min
3:05 VI Old Business
A. Motion to amend the Article VI of the 5 Min.
Constitution, submitted by Administrative
Committee (Attachment 75/3)
3:10 VII New Business 5 Min.
3:15 VIII Committee Reports 30 Min.
A. Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath
(Attachment 75/4)
B. Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - R. Gavlak
(Attachment 75/5)
C. Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen
(Attachment 75/6)
D. Core Review - J. Brown (Attachment 75/7)
E. Curriculum Review - J. French
F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber
(Attachment 75/8)
G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - John Kelley
(Attachment 75/9)
H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement -
D. Porter
I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Henrichs
J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal
(Attachment 75/10)
K. Service Committee - K. Nance
L. University-wide Promotion & Tenure - H. Sankaran
(Attachment 75/11)
3:45 IX Discussion Items 15 Min.
A. Faculty Contribution to the Planning for Recovery
from RIP II: The Sequel to RIP I - J. Craven
4:00 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.
4:05 XI Adjournment
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
Report by John Craven, Senate President
Welcome to the 75th meeting of UAF's Faculty Senate. It will
be our pleasure at this meeting to hear from UAF Provost John
Keating, our guest speaker, who will talk to us about research at
UAF; what it is and how it distinguishes us from universities that do
not have a strong research component.
The RSO Committee (Redesign of the System Office) chaired by
Chancellor Wadlow has now presented its preliminary report to the
BOR's Planning and Development Committee (on October 29th). The
preliminary report is readily available electronically for anyone who
has not already read it. The attachments to the report contain all
public comments, some of which are rather candid. I was not able to
attend that meeting, so I can't give you a first-person account, but
many of us have read stories in the newspaper that suggest the
committee is at work implementing revisions suggested by the
planning committee. I look forward to Chancellor Wadlow's
perspective on the report's reception and the committee's progress
in preparing the final draft. The final report will get its second
vetting on November 14th, in Anchorage. Meanwhile, public hearings
on the report are scheduled for November 4th (6-8 PM) and November
7th (1-3 PM) at locations announced earlier by email.
You all received email copies of the Chancellor's executive
summary of the Chancellor's Workshops. Among the 26 cost saving
ideas given by members of our administration there are four that
should quickly grab our attention: have faculty teach more; change
how research units use state general fund money; replace full-time
faculty with TAs and adjuncts; and eliminate faculty tenure. I
wonder how those same individuals would react if a faculty
workshop suggested the following equally well thought out
suggestions: those paid on "administrative" accounts work more than
40 hours a week in the same percentages as do faculty; change how
administrators use general fund money by being accountable to
faculty; replace full-time administrators with part-time
administrators and TAs; and eliminate administration 12-month
contracts and paid annual leave. Want to bet how soon those would
get implemented?
The ad hoc committee on union-governance issues has its
required minimum number of members and Senator Ron Gatterdam is
acting as convenor for the initial meeting, at which I expect the
committee to elect a chair. The ex officio members from each of the
two bargaining units are former Senator Ron Illingworth (ACCFT) and
Senator John French (United Academics). The senate members are
David Porter (chair of Faculty Development, Assessment and
Improvement), Ray Gavlak (chair of Faculty and Scholarly Affairs),
and Senator Ron Gatterdam (Mathematics). The Faculty Appeals and
Oversight Committee has not yet made a decision.
Several units are now in need of midterm elections to refill a
vacated senate seat and several alternates' positions. I have taken
the list to the Provost's Council, so your deans should soon be
addressing the issue at the college level.
One of my other governance duties is to chair the Faculty
Alliance, comprising faculty leaders of UAA, UAF and UAS, and to
report to the Board of Regents on work and thoughts of the Alliance.
I thought you might like to read some of what I reported at the last
meeting of the Faculty Alliance. It goes as follows:
"The president of the Board of Regents, Mr. Mike Kelly, was the
guest speaker at last Monday's UAF Faculty Senate meeting. My
objective was to provide an opportunity for senate members to hear
from the top what is going on at the regents' level, so they could
understand that it doesn't differ from what is being said on campus
by Chancellor Wadlow and Provost Keating. I encourage you to invite
BOR members to your governance meetings, if you are not already
doing so. Communications is still the best antidote for rumors, and
the deity must know there is a surplus available at the moment.
What I want to do is take advantage of something Mike Kelly said
during his remarks when discussing change. Note, however, that
these are my thoughts as stimulate by his remarks. The essences
was that change is nearly routine today in the business world in
order to remain competitive, and I took him to imply that this too
would be our life for some time to come. It is my position that the
nearly continuous series of program reviews, program assessments,
and the present series of activities, such as RIP-1, its sequel, RIP-
2, "re-invention or re- engineering" of administration, etc. are, in
themselves, becoming the creator of an environment within the
University that is wholly contrary to the learning environment and is
inflicting damage on both morale and the quality of our programs. I
do not have a simple solution, but I find it imperative that everyone
clearly understand that at some point this has to stop. At some
point sanity has to return to the daily lives of all member of this
institution or we will dissolve in a sea of meaningless committees,
reports, words, actions, reactions, recovery from previous actions,
and on and on and on. It truly might be better in the long run to just
get the whole thing over with in one outrageous spasm and then pick
up the pieces and carefully and methodically put together a new
university.
The second point I must make as a faculty member concerns
the counterproductive notion that universities are training grounds
for future employees. I was not trained to be an employee. I went to
a university to continue my education, not to become "educated."
What a dead-end word; "educated." We are supposed to be teaching
people to THINK for themselves so that they can more easily grasp
the essence of the world around them and to more quickly make the
connections between the seemingly disparate parts of our world and
beyond. If I want to learn some specific and relatively narrow task,
the training courses exist, here or somewhere. There is nothing
wrong with that; its part of our mission. But our primary mission,
the mission that makes us unique in this state, and unique like any
institution of higher learning, is to teach people to really THINK for
themselves. If we let the language of the business world become the
daily fare of this University, then we are lost; we are cogs in a
training machine; we do not need tenure; we only need to stand in
front of students, TV cameras, or microphones and point to widget A
that is to be placed in gismo B. Connect the dots and be "trained."
Some in the business world seem bent on dumping the expense of
training for their particular needs and want us to do it. Hell no! We
want people to leave here as more broadly intelligent, thinking
people who also can pick up quickly the needs of employers, as you
should expect. We have enough trouble with the sometimes
disappointing results of K-12 and the lunacy of making it K-14. We
need to be different. Students entering the University need to know
that the rules are now different from home and high school, and that
they are responsible for their own lives and they need to pay
attention or hit the road. If they don't learn this in the four years
they will defenseless in the hard knocks of the business world."
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
President-Elect's Comments - Madeline Schatz
Last week the Faculty Alliance met in Anchorage, at President
Komisar's invitation, with, President Komisar, Provost Keating,
Roberta Morgan (filling in for the UAA provost), 'Nanne Myers, Pat
Ivey and Patty Kastellic. All representatives of the Alliance from
all three MAU's were in attendance and a very educational and
prolific discussion ensued. Topics covered were 1) a general
discussion of the state of the university from our point of view, 2)
RIP-2 and long-term planning, 3) faculty development, and 4)
strategic planning. John Craven presided over the meeting which
lasted from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. The following is
my report to you on the information I carried away from this
encounter.
State of the University
Two of the three faculty members from UAS felt that the public had
a positive perception of the UA system. They felt that the students
were generally pleased but that the faculty members were concerned
about the direction of the university. The program changes were
seen by them as good, deep, systemic changes that needed to be done.
The third representative from UAS, however, felt that the overall
faculty and public perception of the university system was that we
are in a downward spiral and that we needed to refocus our efforts
to create an image of a vibrant and viable university.
UAA also believed that the public is slowly becoming aware of the
positive role of the university system in their lives. They felt,
however, that not enough was being done to bridge the gap between
the really diverse interests and environments of the three MAU's. A
suggestion was made to form a coalition to seek out the similarities
between the campuses in order to avoid devastation of any one unit.
It was stated that the effect of the budget cuts has been to
demoralize the faculty and students. The focus on long range
planning and the RIP must be emphasized.
Your UAF contingent (Craven, Schatz and Nance) spoke to the need for
communication across all lines. It is imperative that everyone
understands what is going on. We discussed with the administrators
the inherent isolation in the university structure and asked for ways
in which this segregation could be modified. They spoke of their
belief in the collegial control of the university and the difficulty in
achieving that process. We seem to have a total lack of trust across
the barriers brought about by rumor mongering and poor media
understanding. President Komisar expressed his confidence in the
quality of the university system stating that our relationship to the
community is the most important aspect in retention and
recruitment. It is clear that most members of the Alaskan
community do not understand the structure of the UA system
(including the governor!). Recent surveys have showed that there are
three main moods held by the public in relation to higher education:
1) they believe that higher education is essential to the success of
Alaskans, 2) they believe that the cost of higher education will rise
even more, and 3) they do not expect their own income to rise in the
near future.
RIP-2 and long term planning
Some faculty members pointed it out that the spirit of the RIP has
changed. It was never, according to them, planned as solely a
management tool but rather a cooperative program between the
university and faculty. It is important, therefore, that management
and faculty get together and plan the outcome. Most of the faculty
members in attendance expressed a desire for involvement in the
process of how decisions will be made on replacements for RIP
positions. A request was made for some sort of a systemwide
checklist, which would be across the board and fairly structured for
all campuses. The faculty, we believe, should be involved in creating
the criteria for this checklist. The mission of each MAU should be
considered when preparing the list.
We were told that RIP administrative positions would not have to be
filled and that RIP positions would definitely not be reallocated
across MAU's.
In essence we were able to communicate our desire to be active in
the decision-making process at the UA. We, as a faculty, MUST be
involved in assessing the impact of the RIP on our programs.
Faculty Development
The initial steering committee for the creation of a Faculty
Development program (distance delivery and teaching pedagogy) was
finalized. Members from UAF are D. Thomas, K. Nance and M. Perkins.
Three members from UAA and two members from UAS (at their
request) were also announced.
There was a very long discussion on the pros and cons of the "virtual
university" and the need for distance delivery to be controlled by
system academic directors and faculty. The whole process needs to
be analyzed and directed toward a meaningful experience with a
definite end. A Board of Regents policy on distance delivery is
expected in 1998.
Intellectual property rights were mentioned, but, as this is an item
under negotiation at this time, no decisions were made.
Strategic Planning
We discussed the short-term and the long-range strategic planning
issues. Short-term topics include the three committees formed by
the President to look at the cost-saving possibilities of 1)
centralization of administrative functions, 2) re-organization of
extended campuses, and 3) the re-allocation of our present
resources.
The long-range issue is to create a statement on what Alaska is
going to be in the future and what the UA's function is going to be in
it. The "white paper" will address these issues and the issue of the
unique demographics of the state of Alaska. With our lower college-
going rate and our higher percentage of students attending college
out of state we must find ways to better serve Alaskans.
Faculty and governance will be asked to come up with a strategic
plan for our future in cooperation with community focus groups. It
is obvious that if we are to survive we must have predictability in
our financing. Perhaps focus groups could give us ideas in that area.
I left the retreat with the feeling that all of us were in agreement
regarding the fact that the academic programs should be the central
focus of our mission. We must communicate across
administrative/faculty lines, across MAU's, and with the Legislature
to get this point across. Our CONSTRUCTIVE response to the
suggestions made in the "white paper" will be essential to the
creation of a communicative process, which works for all of us.
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
***SECOND READING***
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article VI of the
Constitution as follows:
(( )) = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
ARTICLE VI - Relation to the University of Alaska Fairbanks
((Assembly and the University of Alaska General
Assembly)) GOVERNANCE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
AND THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM GOVERNANCE.
Sect. 1 THE UAF FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT-
ELECT ((Senate members)) shall represent the faculty on the
University of Alaska Fairbanks GOVERNANCE COORDINATING
COMMITTEE ((Assembly and the University of Alaska General
Assembly)).
Sect. 2 The UAF FACULTY SENATE President, ((and)) President-
Elect, AND ONE OTHER DESIGNEE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE
PRESIDENT SHALL ((will)) represent the Senate on the
University of Alaska FACULTY ALLIANCE ((General Assembly))
and one will serve on the SYSTEM GOVERNANCE COUNCIL
((Executive Committee of the General Assembly)).
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Changes in the structure and name of the
UAF Governance Coordinating Committee and to the UA
System Governance bodies neccessitate a change in the
UAF Faculty Senate Constitution to bring it up to date.
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
MINUTES OF THE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING, OCTOBER
28, 1997
The CAC met at 3:45 p.m. in Wood Center A. In attendance were
all members of the committee except Ann Tremarello and Wanda
Martin. The committee addressed the following five topics.
1. COURSE-LEVEL DEFINITIONS
The committee reviewed, for the second time, the "draft
statements for catalogs based on BOR regulations and most
comprehensive statements in UAA, UAF, and UAS catalogs." The
committee recommended to the Senate the following response to the
Alliance:
a. Make the language of the statements less vague and general
b. add a statement on credit compressibility
c. make special/reserved numbers consistent across the three
MAUs
d. add, in the policy language, a statement expressing the need
to have prerequisites for upper-division courses.
These recommendations were put in the form of a motion,
which passed unanimously.
2. REVISIONS TO BOARD OF REGENTS' STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES
The committee accepted the report prepared by a
subcommittee (composed of Ron Gatterdam and Sukumar
Bandopadhyay), which had examined the draft BOR policy in detail
and compared it to the UAF grade appeals policy. Discussion of
committee members reflected the subcommittee's general
observations that the BOR draft document was poorly written and
organized (the section designation, particularly, was ill-crafted and
incorrect), and that the tone of the draft document was anti-faculty
and appeared contemptuous of the academic process.
The committee discussed the specific recommendations of the
subcommittee; it accepted most and amended some. Members
adopted unanimously the following committee resolution:
a. [UAF] I, An introduction should be added to [BOR]. In
particular, the paragraph asserting the unique authority of the
instructor to assign a grade should be added.
b. [BOR] B3b(3) should be replaced by [UAF] IIIA5. The only
circumstance under which a department head (dean/director) can
make a grade correction is if the instructor is unavailable and class
records are available.
c. In [BOR] B3c(2) CEO should be replaced by Dean.
d. [BOR] B3c(2)(c) should be replaced by [UAF] IIIB4d.
e. [BOR] B3c(4)(b) should be replaced by [UAF] IIIB5c 2).
f. [UAF] IIIB5c.4) should be appended to [BOR] B3c(4).
g. The final paragraph of [BOR] B3c(4) should be replaced by
[UAF] IIIB5d). The action of the committee should be final and not
subject to review.
h. [BOR] B3c(6) does not provide due process for the instructor
of the class. In particular, the meeting should be closed unless both
the student and instructor request that it be open. Also, the
instructor should be permitted an advisor.
i. [BOR] B3c(7) should be revised as follows: "The committee
will deliberate in private and will forward its written findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to the Dean within five (5) class
days of the meeting. The committee is not authorized to award a
grade. A copy of the committee's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations must be sent to the student and instructor.
j. [BOR] B3c(8) should be eliminated and replaced with: "The
recommendation of the committee is final."
k. In [BOR] B3d CEO should be replaced by Dean.
l. The BOR policy 09.01.00 should make specific reference to
policy 09.01.00 (P09.01.09 in draft) and incorporate the section
"Prohibitions on Reprisal and Retaliation."
3. ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR 1998-99
The committee reviewed the action of the governance
coordinating committee, which has recommended that MLK day be
made up by adding a Monday class day to the end of the semester,
which would push final exams back one day. The concern of the
committee was that this recommendation contravenes action the
Senate took at its 20th meeting (September 17, 1990), specifying
that there should be one day between the end of instruction and the
start of the final exam period.
Student representative Steve Nuss (who chaired the
governance coordinating committee) explained that for this
particular year, a weekend would separate the close of instruction
and start of exams. The committee engaged in general discussion,
the gist of which was that the process we have undergone to find a
"make up day" for the civil rights holiday is nonsensical. The
committee decided to take no action on this issue.
4. PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE AHEAD PROGRAM
John Craven presented additional information on the AHEAD
program, and the suggestion that it become known as the "Middle
College" option for high school students at UAF. Questions concerned
who might be eligible for this program (HS juniors as well as
seniors?), whether it would be available for students outside the
Fairbanks school district, who would pay for it, and what the
program components contained. The Senate will hear a presentation
on AHEAD's expansion in December, and the committee deferred
action until it received more details.
5. LISTING OF PREREQUISITES IN THE CATALOG
Sukumar questioned the listing of prerequisites in the catalog,
specifically those departmental listings of "junior/senior standing
AND permission of the instructor." In his view, this was an obstacle
to entry for students registering in the summer, who could not
locate an instructor. Some committee members thought this was a
departmental issue and there might be more effective ways to
address it than through committee or senate action. The committee
awaits a need statement from the provost as to the impact of this
issue.
The chair announced the next committee meeting for early
December, probably December 2nd, unless pressing curricular
business necessitates a meeting in November.
The committee adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Submitted by Jerry McBeath.
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY & SCHOLARLY AFFAIRS
Minutes of Faculty and Scholarly Affairs committee meeting,
10/22/97
Present: R. Boone, B. Cooper, K Criddle, R. Gavlak (chair), T. Johnson,
B. Mortensen, B. White
The meeting was again devoted to discussion of a possible
motion on tenure-track faculty working on degrees from UAF at the
same time they are employed here. Draft language for a motion was
discussed and revised, but a few of the issues discussed could not be
resolved immediately. Remaining issues include: whether
accumulating credit for courses should be allowed (and if so, who
should approve it); how the policy should apply to faculty with non-
Ph.D terminal degrees (such as the MBA or MFA); whether a policy is
needed for anyone besides tenure-track faculty; how or whether to
deal with faculty with joint appointments at two campuses of the
UA system; and a few other details. More research and more
discussion will follow.
Next meeting: 11/19/97, 4 PM.
Submitted by B. Cooper
R. Gavlak, Chair
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Minutes of the Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs
Committee, Oct. 27, 1997
The GPCAC met from 1:00 to 3:00 pm in the Chancelor's Conference
Room, Signer's Hall on Oct. 27, 1997. In attendance were: Michael
Whalen, Jim Allen, Elena Conti, Mike Eichholz, Joe Kan, Dennis
Stephens, John Craven, Gayle Gregory.
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE SECRETARY
Jim Allen was elected secretary of the committee.
2. TRAIL COURSE REQUESTS
ART 494/694, Northern Studies 694
Discussion ensued concerning the stacking of courses and the
additional requirements for the graduate portion of staced courses.
While several committee members felt that the simple requirement
of an extra paper for graduate credit was inadequate they agreed
that this meets the written requirements for a stacked course. The
additional requirements, however, were not outlined under the ART
494/694 proposal and the committee's approval depends on the
proper paper work being submitted.
Approved pending paper work changes concerning stacking or ART
494/694
MPR 694
Approved
3. BOR STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES
John Craven provided some background information concerning the
draft policies including a summary of the findings of the
subcommittee of the Curicular Affairs Committee which reviewed
the policies in detail. After discussion the committee voted to
defer to the more detailed analysis of the above committee.
4. MS DEGREES GRANTED DURING PHD PROGRAMS
The commitee spent considerable time discussing the merits of
granting an MS to students pursuing the PhD. The concensus was
that clarification of the current policy was necessary and that the
proposed policy probably needs to be more specific concerning the
use of MS degree materials toward the PhD. Given that the GSAC is
also reviewing this topic in detail the committee voted to defer
further discussion pending the GSAC's findings.
5. COURSE LEVEL DEFINITIONS
The committee considered only 500 and 600 level courses.
600-699: Graduate level courses.
The committee voted to accept the draft statement with minor
corrections. The revised definition would read:
These courses are for post-baccalaureate study towards advanced
degrees with the approval of the student's Graduate Study
Committee. A few well qualified undergraduates may be admitted to
graduate courses with appropriate approval in the department in
which the course is being offered. With prior approval they may be
used to meet graduation requirements for baccalaureate degrees but
a student may not apply a course to both a baccalaureate and a
graduate degree.
500-599: Professional Development Courses
The committee voted to accept the draft statement for 500 level
course descriptions.
Michael Whalen, Chair
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW
CORE Review Committee Minutes, Meeting 22 October, 1997
Members present: Jin Brown, Basil Coutant, Judy Shepherd, Tara
Maginnis, Renee Manfredi, Dan White Ex Officio present: Gorden
Hedahl, Dennis Stephens, Sue McHenry
Agenda Item 1: Committee voted all in favor of going forward with
our "O" and "W" assessment plan. A letter to be sent from the
Committee through Governance to departments, and to faculty
through departments, who offer "O" or "W" courses stating the plan
for outcomes assessment of the "O" and "W" aspects of the CORE
Curriculum. A date is set for an open meeting for all concerned. (4
November, 1:00-2:00)
Agenda Item 2: A letter from the Committee to the Registrar was
revised and is to be sent immediately asking that banner be set to
deny admission into an upper division "O" or "W" course to any
students attempting to register without prerequisites All members
voted for.
Agenda Item 3: CORE Curriculum Review will request Department
Heads of departments presenting courses in the CORE Perspectives
on the Human Condition (or their representatives) to attend the next
meeting (5 November) to inform the Committee on plans for their
outcomes assessment procedures.
Agenda Item 4: The Committee was given a revision of the Eastern
New Mexico report form (for reporting outcomes assessment data).
We will vote on November 5th on our own form (it was previously
decided that we would use a revised version of the ENM form).
Agenda Item 5: The Committee voted all in favor to accept the
adjudication decisions of the Chair on the 5 petitions before the
committee this meeting. It was noted that the number of petitions
to the CORE is considerably down from this point last year. It is
hoped that the efforts of this Committee to "send signals" around
the University that petitions must be submitted with adequate
documentation is having an effect.
The Committee has asked the Chair to invite Dean Paul Reichardt to
visit the Committee to discuss the Breadth/Depth requirement for
CORE Natural Sciences. The Chair was asked, further, to review the
pattern of the CORE decision-making process last year in regard to
petitions to the Breadth/Depth requirement.
Jin Brown, Chair
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES
MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES MEETING, October 28,
1997
In attendance: Charlotte Basham, Susan Blalock, Kay Brekke, Richard
Clausen, Cindy Hardy, Ron Illingworth, Rose Kairaiuak, Wanda Martin,
Joe Mason, Mark Oswood, Greg Owens, Ron Palcic, Jane Weber
The Developmental Studies committee discussed the following
items:
Tracking DEV students' progress through academic and vocational
classes. Wanda, Jane, Cindy, and Greg met October 2 to determine
criteria to request information from the SIS system before it goes
off line. They reported that they had received information from Ann
Tremarello on students who had taken DEVM classes and all 100-
level math classes and students who had taken DEVE and English 111.
This data will not reflect the situation of those students at rural
sites who take ABUS and TTCH classes instead of DEVE classes.
Wanda will try to run ACT, SAT, and ASSET scores for the past six
semesters, the semesters for which we have other data. Since SIS
will go off line, correlation of data will have to be done by hand.
This group will continue to meet and will report on its findings.
Outcomes Assessment. Jane and Ron received an email message
from Dana Thomas requesting that we discuss and make plans to
implement an Outcomes Assessment for DEV classes. There was
some discussion as to the nature of the assessment and the extent
of assessment requested. The committee decided to appoint a
subcommittee to determine what has been done at other locations
both within UAF and at other colleges and universities, and to
develop a method of assessment appropriate to DEV classes. A
subcommittee of Wanda, Cindy, Ron, Jane, Greg, Joe, and Kay will
meet November 5, at 3:30 PM in one of the Wood Center conference
rooms. Dana Thomas will be invited to speak at our next meeting to
answer questions about the Outcomes Assessment process.
Resolution on the continuance of the rural campuses. Though there
was expression of support for this idea, it wasn't clear that a
resolution of this sort is the role of this committee. It was decided
to put this item on hold.
Renorming ASSET and COMPASS for placement of DEV students. This
has been on hold since Marcele Skelton left TVC. Ron agreed to get
data from the rural sites and from TVC so that we can begin work on
this again.
Required placement of A.A. students into study skills classes. There
was some discussion about the scope and nature of these classes.
Mark asked whether this would be limited to A.A. students or would
apply to all entering freshmen. Ron stated that applying it to A.A.
students would be more workable, since they are advised through
TVC. A subcommittee was appointed to look into this further,
including looking at what is being done at other schools. The
subcommittee members are Rose, Ron, and Mark.
Developmental Science class. There was brief discussion of this,
but due to time constraints this discussion was postponed to a later
meeting.
Tutorial support for former SSSP students through the Writing
Center and Math Lab. Jane and Susan are working on this and will
report at a later meeting.
The next meeting of the Developmental Studies Committee will be
November 18, 12:45-1:45 in Wood Center Conference Room A.
Jane Weber, Co-Chair
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
Minutes, Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee meeting, October
28, 1997
Present: T. Cooney, F. Dyen, M. Karlsson, J. Kelley, J. Ruppert, F.
Sorensen, R. Stolzberg, B. Wilson
Absent: G. Chukwu, G. Goering, ( D. Verbyla contacted S. Layral
regarding class conflict)
The committee met (third meeting) on Tuesday, October 28,
1977 in the Chancellor's conference room. The first order of
business was the election of a chairperson. This task has been
deferred since the committee first met and Barbara Alexander
announced her resignation as chairperson and member of the
committee. John Kelley agreed to serve as a co-chair since he was
inexperienced with the work of the committee. This task was
resolved with John Kelley agreeing to serve as chairperson and the
experienced members of the committee (Stolzberg and Karlsson)
agreeing to serve as advisors. The chair of this committee is
expected to participate in the UAF Faculty Senate Administrative
Committee meetings.
Representation on the committee needs to be resolved. There
are three vacant positions: CNRDM/SOM, CSEM and ACE. The latter is
vacant due to the death of the faculty member. Fred Sorensen agreed
to expedite a replacement. Dean P. Reichardt anticipates appointing
a member for CSEM. The CNRDM/SOM position needs further
clarification as to how or whether or not it will be filled.
No action is needed during this semester for selection of
members on the Grievance Council. Dan Walsh will serve until April
1998 and Jonah Lee will serve until April 1999.
The committee agreed that all members will be candidates for
selection for the Grievance Hearing Panel Pool.
The committee agreed that all members will be candidates for
selection for Grade Appeals. It was unresolved how this selection
will work. Stolzberg and Karlsson were previous to this meeting
selected for a CSEM undergraduate grade appeal. J. Ruppert is
involved in a grade appeal action and J. Kelley was requested by e-
mail from Dean Hedahl (CLA) to serve on a grade appeals action. This
committee needs to discuss an effective procedure to keep track of
grade appeals.
Committee members asked if there was a report written ( M.
Tumeo?) last March regarding Academic Administrator Evaluation
and Oversight.
The committee agreed to table the discussion on
representation on the ad hoc Committee on Governance/Union
Relations. It may be appropriate for this committee to address the
question to the President of the Senate.
The committee agreed that the Faculty Ethics task be removed
as a task item as it has been resolved through Faculty Senate action
last year.
Committee members expressed concern that there will be
enough members to carry on the business of the committee. All
elected members are urged to commit to attending, state why the
can't, or find a replacement.
The committee agreed that we should meet one more time this
semester, possibly in early December. A Tuesday from 1 to 2 p.m.
will be scheduled unless it conflicts with other member schedules.
John Kelley, Chair
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY LEGISLATIVE & FISCAL AFFAIRS
Legislative & Fiscal Affairs Committee, Minutes, 20 October 1997
Convened by Dr. W. Scott Deal
Present: Dr. W. Scott Deal (Chair), Professor Daniel Cole-McCullough
(Secretary),Dr. Fredric Husby, Representative Tom Brice
Absent: Dr. Eduord Zilberkant, Rovanna Martin, Wendy Redman
Discussion with introductions. Representative Brice expressed
his support for the University as a whole and presented an overview
of the operations of the Legislature. He suggested four areas in the
budget process to be aware of. All of which have impact on the
University of Alaska System.
Dr. Deal and Professor Cole-McCullough presented
Representative Brice with more than 350 signatures of voting
citizens demanding the reinstatement of a reasonable budget for the
University. Representative Brice was impressed and suggested that
more signatures be received by the public and sent with the letter
constructed by Dr. Deal to the Governor. He felt that the University
had taken more cuts than it could afford and restated his support for
the University System.
Dr. Husby and Representative Brice dialoged about agricultural
concerns and the impact on farmers by the University. They both
gave suggestions for gaining support for pressure on the legislators
that continue to support budget cuts and ways of
informing/educating those legislators to the destruction they are
causing.
Submitted by Professor Daniel Cole-McCullough, Secretary
***************
ATTACHMENT 75/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #75
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION & TENURE
Minutes, Promotion and Tenure Committee Meetings
October 10, 1997
Participants present: Harikumar Sankaran (chair), V. Kamath,
Meriam Karlsson, Sheryl Stanek, Arvid Welfen, Perry Gilmore,
Marvin Falk, Erich Follmann, John Gimbel, and Kes Woodward.
Participants absent: Deben Das and Brian Paust.
Guest: Ron Illingworth
Issue 1 : Consideration of distance education criteria in promotion
and tenure review.
The university-wide committee unanimously encourages individual
departments to design their own criteria to evaluate work done
towards developing distance education. For example, peer review of
teaching is a method the department can use. The UAF regulation on
faculty appointment and evaluation policies (page 3) indicates that
the periodic evaluation of faculty includes distance delivery based
courses as part of teaching evaluation. The committee felt that it
would be appropriate to develop such criteria at the department
level.
Issue 2: Define the promotion and tenure process for faculty under
ACCFT.
The following processes refer to the sequence of evaluative steps
taken during the evaluation of a faculty's file.
Past process: Faculty
Director
UAA Promotion and
Tenure Committee augmented by UAF
UAF Chancellor.
Proposed process: Faculty
Director
Unit-peer review
Dean
UAF Promotion and Tenure Committee
UAF Chancellor
a) The proposed process was a consensus view of the committee.
Ron Illingworth was concerned that the majority of the members in
the university-wide committee does not have a work-load agreement
that is similar to the faculty coming up from CRA. In response, the
committee recommended that CRA set up a unit-peer evaluation
step. b) Unlike the past, the Dean of CRA will perform an evaluative
role as all the files are from UAF. c) The UAF Promotion and Tenure
Committee, with no change in membership, will evaluate the files.
d) The files would go to the Chancellor's office next. The Chancellor
decides to obtain input from the Provost, if needed.
Ron Illingworth wanted to discuss the proposal with the ACCFT
board. No vote was taken at this time. A meeting was scheduled for
October 24, 1997.
------------------------
Promotion and Tenure Committee Meeting, October 24, 1997
Participants present: Erich Follmann, John Gimbel, Harikumar
Sankaran, Gang Chen, Meriam Karlsson, Sheryl Stanek,
Arvid Welfen, Deben Das and Kes Woodward.
Participants absent: Perry Gilmore and Brian Paust.
Guest: Ron Illingworth
Proposed process: Faculty
Director
Unit-peer review
Dean
UAF Promotion and Tenure Committee
Provost
UAF Chancellor
Ron Illingworth accepted the proposal with some concerns: a) In
case there is a disagreement at the unit level, Ron wanted the
flexibility to allow a faculty from CRA with a similar work-load to
represent the candidate at the University-wide committee. The
committee pointed out that the chair of the unit peer review
committee can designate an appropriate person to present the
candidate's file to the University-wide committee. b) Page 19 of the
UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies contains the
Appendix that details the role of the Provost in the evaluative
process. Based on what is written, the committee felt that it is not
clear whether the candidate has the opportunity to respond to the
Provost's comments. Hence, we used the guidelines for Promotion
and Tenure sent out by the Provost on September 5, 1997 to all
candidates as the steps to be taken between the University-wide
level and the Chancellor. Hence, the files would be forwarded to the
Provost and the candidate will be allowed to respond to the
Provost's comments.
The committee felt that the regulation in the "blue book" must
clarify whether or not the file is forwarded to the Provost after the
University-wide committee has made its recommendations. In its
present form it is not clear.
All participants unanimously voted in favor of the proposal with the
conditions in (a) and (b).
Ron had the following notes to the above process. They were
discussed and approved by consensus (without a vote). i) Faculty
appointment and evaluation is made on the basis of workload, ie.,
tripartite academic, bipartite academic, or bipartite vocational. ii)
Candidates shall have an opportunity to review the recommendations
made at each level and may submit comments regarding negative
recommendations. The committee pointed out that the candidate can
respond even if he or she has received positive recommendations.
iii) Candidates may add information, such as acceptance of a
manuscript or grant proposal, at any time during the review process.
iv) After the Chancellor's decision, any disagreement will be
handeled under Article 4 --Grievance Procedure.